## Facts

- A pro se plaintiff filed two nearly identical federal civil-rights complaints against Massachusetts officials and individuals associated with Boston schools.
- The complaints largely consisted of formulaic, conclusory statements alleging constitutional deprivations under color of state law and citing 42 U.S.C. § 1986 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343, without providing factual allegations describing the events, acts, or injuries at issue.
- In connection with the plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, a magistrate reviewed the docket and found the plaintiff had filed multiple additional actions using similar boilerplate language and involving overlapping defendants.
- The magistrate concluded the complaints failed to provide information permitting defendants to respond, violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, and appeared frivolous.
- The magistrate recommended dismissal and a restriction on further filings absent permission from a district judge due to repeated unsupported filings burdening the court.
- The district court adopted the recommendation, dismissed the complaints, and entered an injunction barring the plaintiff from filing any lawsuit or papers in the federal district court in Massachusetts without prior authorization from a district judge, and directing the clerk not to accept filings absent such authorization.
- The plaintiff appealed, challenging both the dismissals and the breadth of the filing restriction.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court properly dismissed the complaints for failure to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and as frivolous.
2. Whether the district court properly entered an injunction requiring prior judicial permission before the plaintiff could file new actions or papers, and whether the injunction was impermissibly broad.

## Decision

- The court of appeals affirmed dismissal of the complaints because they were conclusory, provided no factual basis to give notice of the claims, and thus failed Rule 8’s pleading requirements even under liberal construction for pro se filings.
- The court of appeals agreed the record supported a finding that the filings appeared frivolous, given the repeated pattern of similarly unsupported complaints.
- The court of appeals held that federal courts may impose a prefiling permission requirement on abusive litigants to protect the court’s processes and other litigants’ access.
- The court of appeals determined the injunction as drafted was overly broad and required modification or clarification to ensure it was properly limited and did not function as an absolute or indefinite bar to court access.

## Legal Principles

- Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief; a complaint must include enough factual content to give defendants fair notice of what conduct is challenged.
- Pro se pleadings are construed liberally, but a pro se litigant must still allege minimal facts; citations to statutes and constitutional provisions without supporting factual allegations do not satisfy Rule 8.
- Federal courts have authority, including inherent power and authority recognized under the All Writs Act, to protect their jurisdiction and manage their dockets by restricting abusive litigation practices.
- A prefiling screening or permission requirement may be imposed on a litigant with a documented history of frivolous or vexatious filings, so long as the restriction is carefully drawn.
- Filing restrictions must be tailored in scope and procedure so they screen frivolous or duplicative matters without operating as a total bar to access to the courts.

## Conclusion

The court of appeals upheld dismissal of the plaintiff’s conclusory civil-rights complaints for failure to meet Rule 8 and for apparent frivolousness, and it approved prefiling permission requirements for a vexatious litigant in principle, while requiring that such an injunction be confined and clearly administered so it does not amount to a blanket denial of court access.


Pavilonis v. King, 626 F.2d 1075 (1st Cir. 1980)